A discretionary withdrawal order under Section 151 CPC is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1.

Hayagreve sued NBCC for, among other reliefs, recovery of ₹6,59,13,849 for works on the Wanakbori project.

In its written statement, NBCC stated that ₹4,00,17,407 was payable for that project but had been withheld under contractual lien provisions in connection with a separate Yadadri project.

On Hayagreve’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, the Single Judge directed NBCC to deposit that amount with the Registrar General, to be held in an interest-bearing FDR; NBCC made the deposit.

Hayagreve later sought withdrawal under Section 151 CPC.

The Single Judge permitted withdrawal subject to an unconditional bank guarantee for the equivalent amount and an undertaking to comply with any future restitution order.

Hayagreve appealed, challenging the conditions and disputing NBCC’s asserted lien over the amount.

Whether an order under Section 151 CPC permitting conditional withdrawal of an amount deposited pursuant to an order under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC make only specified orders appealable; an order under Section 151 CPC is not, by itself, included among them.

In Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, (1952) 2 SCC 329, the Supreme Court held that an order made under Section 151 CPC is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permits an appeal only against orders enumerated in Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

The Court treated the impugned order as one made on Hayagreve’s Section 151 CPC application for withdrawal, rather than as an appeal from the earlier Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC order directing deposit.

That order exercised discretion to allow withdrawal subject to a bank guarantee and an undertaking; it did not fall within any category of appealable orders under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act did not provide an independent basis for appeal because it likewise restricts appeals to the orders specified in Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

The Court therefore did not examine the parties’ competing submissions on the lien or the withdrawal conditions on their merits.

The Court dismissed the appeal without deciding the merits of the dispute.